Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Leuk01.jpg

HDR photography
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2013 at 01:57:54 (UTC)
 * Reason:This picture perfectly inspire visitors to look into the article associated with it hence it contains adequate EV. Moreover, the picture is well shaped and composition is nice.
 * Articles in which this image appears:High dynamic range imaging
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Photographic_techniques
 * Creator:Wolfgang Staudt


 * Support as nominator --Msnat (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the image is artistically very nice, the technical quality and encyclopedic value preclude it from being a featured picture. The colours are oversaturated, and there is a significant amount of image noise in the sky. Furthermore, the detail has been enhanced and exaggerated using unsharp masking. For use in the article on HDR imaging, the picture description page has no documentation on the HDR process, which makes it have minimal EV for use in that regard. In fact, the Flickr page does not even mention it was HDR at all. In addition, in the placement in the article, the caption is misleading by labelling it as an HDR image when it is in fact an LDR image that was created by tone-mapping an HDR image. dllu (t,c) 02:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per dllu. The picture looks quite good, but confuses an observer like me with its colour saturation.BNK (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Colours look very fake. Arctic   Kangaroo  10:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the picture is kinda striking to me, I concur with dllu. Too many issues. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the comments above mention "fake" colours and colour over-saturation, but isn't that the whole point? I think the picture is an example of a photographic effect that is supposed to look a bit unreal. The other examples at High-dynamic-range imaging all have similar feel. IMO it is a striking, interesting and rather beautiful image. Whether it is a true or representative example of "HDR" I have no idea. If not, perhaps it could be re-nominated under a more accurate description. 86.160.220.22 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Both the HDR and Tone Mapping articles seemingly inadvertently show the least desirable outcomes from using these techniques. This image would be just another of the same thing... over-cooked result. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say "least desirable" depends on the creator's intention. If the intention was to create a realistic colour palette then clearly it is a failure. If the intention was to create a surreal image then IMO it is a success. The HDR article says the term is commonly used to refer to technique that "exaggerates contrast for artistic effect". I imagine this is such an case. I suppose that people who do not like the artistic effect will not like the result. 86.160.85.234 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment To address the comments discussing whether oversaturated colours are appropriate in HDR for artistic effect, I would like to repeat that it is not clear whether this photo is an HDR photo at all. In the source there is no mention of HDR from the author. It could well be created from a single exposure (which its EXIF suggests), in which case it is not an HDR image. dllu (t,c) 21:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)